To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

VOLUME 51. ISSUE 29 MONDAY. OCTOBER 29. 1990 IGNPO in WEBER STATE COLLEGE ST i Coming home to Love LOVE WAS IN the air Friday night at Weber State's Homecoming dance. Couples swooned on the dance floor and cuddled in carriage rides afterwards beneath a starry October sky. All In all, It was a perfect night (or the mysterious and hauting magic of love. OUtNN JACOBSONWf SIGNPOST ... ?JW QUiNN JAC06SON W SIGNPOST Wilderness conservation sparks heated debate Lecturer says wilderness designation could cost $ 13 billion and 33 WO jobs By Paul B. Johnson Managing editor of The Signpost As evidenced by the reaction of the crowd to a guest lecturer opposing additional federal wilderness designation, the wilderness debate is not out of the woods yet. One audience member accused A. Grant Gerber of telling "half-stories," while another shouted, "How many new Sequoias have come up?" before storming out of the room. Gerber, a WSC alumnus, represents Wilderness Impact Research Foundation, a Nevada-based group supported by ranching, agriculture and oil-industry interests. The lecture was presented as an Open Hour forum Thursday. "There's a conflict in American society right now between conservationists and preservationists," Gerber said. Preservationists, he said, include groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First! and Greenpeace, whose policies in affect advocate "no jobs" and "non-use of the land." Meanwhile, conservationists, such as the lumber and oil industries, provide a stronger economy and allow management of wildlife and environmental resources, he said. "In this room, if you look around, everything that you see and touch, everything that you use," he said, "were somehow provided by the people on the conservation side." Dr. Samuel Zeveloff, chair of the WSC Zoology Department, attended the lecture and said he felt Gerber's differentiation of conservationists and preservationists was inaccurate. "1 was unhappy with many aspects of Gerber's presentation," he said. "There are many Preservationist groups, such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, advocate "no jobs" and "non-use of the land." A. Grant Gerber Wilderness Impact Research Foundation conservationists who favor more wilderness ... there is no real separation."Zeveloff called Gerber's arguments "inaccurate and misleading" and "biased to begin with." Zeveloff is the co-editor of a book studying the impact of wilderness issues in the western United States. Gerber discussed current legislation under consideration that would set aside 150 million additional acres beyond the nation's existing 90 million acres of desig-, nated federal wilderness as much land as California, Nevada and Utah. One advocate is Utah Rep. Wayne Owens. Once land is designated as wilderness, there are strict laws against motorized travel, which includes outlawing the use of helicopters below 2,000 feet, as well as chainsaws or similar mechanical implements, Gerber said. In addition, agriculture and grazing use suffers, he said. "The federal government is buying land at an awesome pace, spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to buy additional private land to put in the federal domain," he said. He read several affidavits (See GERBER page 12) Removal of food tax may lower state revenue By Donna O'Steen Staff writer of The Signpost Utah voters will decide on Nov. 6 whether or not they'll take the initiative to remove state food tax. Patrick Shea, attorney and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Michael Levitt of the state Board of Regents met Oct. 16 in Salt Lake City at the Cathedral of the Madeleine to debate the pros and cons of the proposal. "Guns are being held to the public's head," Levitt said. If a decision isn't made, then government officials "will blow up higher education," he said. "It's tax policy terrorism." Initiative A would remove tax on "any food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption," according to an August report compiled in part by the Utah State Tax "Guns are being held to the public's head ...It's tax policy terrorism." Michael Levitt Utah Board of Regents Commission. The report also estimates that the removal of food tax would result in a $1 13 million loss of revenue for fiscal year 1990-91 . In addition most higher education and state agencies, which are funded by the state General Fund, would lose revenue. The General Fund is primarily supported by state food tax. Levitt said he is opposed to the the initiative and would like to see the food tax removed for the benefit of the poor but not for others that the tax targets. Levitt contends that some people believe that "food tax is a way to pay education costs for families who have many children." "There is nothing more remediating for the poor than higher education," he said. Some, especially those without any children, consider this an unfair burden, he said. However, Levitt added that only less than four percent of Utah families have more than four members. Rather, he believes the sales tax is a fair tax because everybody pays. According to the tax commission's report, families who make $5,000-20,000 a year, 28 percent of the state population, bear 32 percent of the sales tax burden. The largest tax burden, 34 percent, falls on those with an income of $20,000-40,000, who make up 39 percent of the population. Levitt said that nobody wants to talk about taxes and somebody is going to be upset no matter what tax is advocated. "One hundred percent of the people will agree that there is something wrong with taxes," he (See FOOD TAX page 12) News 2 Clinic offers child care to students and faculty Sports O Weber loses Homecoming heartbreaker I I:

Public Domain. Courtesy of University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University.

Full-Text

VOLUME 51. ISSUE 29 MONDAY. OCTOBER 29. 1990 IGNPO in WEBER STATE COLLEGE ST i Coming home to Love LOVE WAS IN the air Friday night at Weber State's Homecoming dance. Couples swooned on the dance floor and cuddled in carriage rides afterwards beneath a starry October sky. All In all, It was a perfect night (or the mysterious and hauting magic of love. OUtNN JACOBSONWf SIGNPOST ... ?JW QUiNN JAC06SON W SIGNPOST Wilderness conservation sparks heated debate Lecturer says wilderness designation could cost $ 13 billion and 33 WO jobs By Paul B. Johnson Managing editor of The Signpost As evidenced by the reaction of the crowd to a guest lecturer opposing additional federal wilderness designation, the wilderness debate is not out of the woods yet. One audience member accused A. Grant Gerber of telling "half-stories," while another shouted, "How many new Sequoias have come up?" before storming out of the room. Gerber, a WSC alumnus, represents Wilderness Impact Research Foundation, a Nevada-based group supported by ranching, agriculture and oil-industry interests. The lecture was presented as an Open Hour forum Thursday. "There's a conflict in American society right now between conservationists and preservationists," Gerber said. Preservationists, he said, include groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First! and Greenpeace, whose policies in affect advocate "no jobs" and "non-use of the land." Meanwhile, conservationists, such as the lumber and oil industries, provide a stronger economy and allow management of wildlife and environmental resources, he said. "In this room, if you look around, everything that you see and touch, everything that you use," he said, "were somehow provided by the people on the conservation side." Dr. Samuel Zeveloff, chair of the WSC Zoology Department, attended the lecture and said he felt Gerber's differentiation of conservationists and preservationists was inaccurate. "1 was unhappy with many aspects of Gerber's presentation," he said. "There are many Preservationist groups, such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, advocate "no jobs" and "non-use of the land." A. Grant Gerber Wilderness Impact Research Foundation conservationists who favor more wilderness ... there is no real separation."Zeveloff called Gerber's arguments "inaccurate and misleading" and "biased to begin with." Zeveloff is the co-editor of a book studying the impact of wilderness issues in the western United States. Gerber discussed current legislation under consideration that would set aside 150 million additional acres beyond the nation's existing 90 million acres of desig-, nated federal wilderness as much land as California, Nevada and Utah. One advocate is Utah Rep. Wayne Owens. Once land is designated as wilderness, there are strict laws against motorized travel, which includes outlawing the use of helicopters below 2,000 feet, as well as chainsaws or similar mechanical implements, Gerber said. In addition, agriculture and grazing use suffers, he said. "The federal government is buying land at an awesome pace, spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to buy additional private land to put in the federal domain," he said. He read several affidavits (See GERBER page 12) Removal of food tax may lower state revenue By Donna O'Steen Staff writer of The Signpost Utah voters will decide on Nov. 6 whether or not they'll take the initiative to remove state food tax. Patrick Shea, attorney and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Michael Levitt of the state Board of Regents met Oct. 16 in Salt Lake City at the Cathedral of the Madeleine to debate the pros and cons of the proposal. "Guns are being held to the public's head," Levitt said. If a decision isn't made, then government officials "will blow up higher education," he said. "It's tax policy terrorism." Initiative A would remove tax on "any food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption," according to an August report compiled in part by the Utah State Tax "Guns are being held to the public's head ...It's tax policy terrorism." Michael Levitt Utah Board of Regents Commission. The report also estimates that the removal of food tax would result in a $1 13 million loss of revenue for fiscal year 1990-91 . In addition most higher education and state agencies, which are funded by the state General Fund, would lose revenue. The General Fund is primarily supported by state food tax. Levitt said he is opposed to the the initiative and would like to see the food tax removed for the benefit of the poor but not for others that the tax targets. Levitt contends that some people believe that "food tax is a way to pay education costs for families who have many children." "There is nothing more remediating for the poor than higher education," he said. Some, especially those without any children, consider this an unfair burden, he said. However, Levitt added that only less than four percent of Utah families have more than four members. Rather, he believes the sales tax is a fair tax because everybody pays. According to the tax commission's report, families who make $5,000-20,000 a year, 28 percent of the state population, bear 32 percent of the sales tax burden. The largest tax burden, 34 percent, falls on those with an income of $20,000-40,000, who make up 39 percent of the population. Levitt said that nobody wants to talk about taxes and somebody is going to be upset no matter what tax is advocated. "One hundred percent of the people will agree that there is something wrong with taxes," he (See FOOD TAX page 12) News 2 Clinic offers child care to students and faculty Sports O Weber loses Homecoming heartbreaker I I: